Find Out About The Real David Icke.

AlmightyCushion

BlitzKrieg wrote:

No you dont understand.

NO computer elements at all.

Basic filmmaking 101.

Film is made up of individual frames that go at a set speed to create motion.

This applies even to digital video.

Notice the choppy movement of the video on youtube?

That has nothing to do with youtube or with low quality compression or otherwise.

It means the piece was shot at a low framerate.

Now most basic camcorders shoot at a higher frame rate, but can be adjusted for that *film* look by forcing progressive scan which puts the frame rate at 24 a second. But beyond a few very expensive ones they mostly f*ck it up, hence the footage comes out choppy and crap.

Small digital camcorders to save file space and due to their size shoot at even smaller frame rates.


Now take one of these cameras and take the footage out and put it in editing software...with a half decent one (adobe premiere for example) you can look at the individual frames of the footage.

So how does this help create a trick.

Well the cheap and easy way...which would be the way industrial light and magic would do it is to take a few of those frames, alter them on a computer and put them back in...PRESTO! you have instant special effects...Problem is, like you said its easy to spot if you check each individual frame.


BUT!

If you go by a very traditional...very expensive route of creating these effects. You organise a shoot, you reherse and reherse and time it just so its perfect, and then you shoot it. AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN. Then you shoot it again with a minor cosmetic change...and again with a different cosmetic change and you keep this up for as much as you feel you need.

The result is you will have the same scene over and over and over, and because its shot at such a low frame rate, the consistency of it is pretty easy to keep up.


Especially if your only making changes on the level of a few frames

The piece runs at such a low frame rate that it wouldnt be difficult to keep the consistency. The first *big* thing the people point out...the smile going to a scowl. THats because of a low frame rate, the frames containing her changing her expression were not recorded. The changes in her appearance, are from different takes, such as the appearance of random body marks and abnormalities.


Nobody does this today because its insanely expensive (think how much filminh you would need to do to rethread the same scene enough times...in hollywood sense its not fianancially worth it.) its also time consuming and in normal frames rates it would be even more difficult.

Buuut if you wanted to do a *spooky* effect where no sfx traces are left behind then this is the best way. The only problem is it requires alot of patience and alot of work.

Where's his money? This man has just shot down the only piece of 'evidence' you guys have posted up.

Terry

Woghd wrote:

If you want to get into burden of proof, I'll revive my comments about the video of a reptilian shapeshifter, the one that offers a reward to anyone who can prove it's fake. I was nice and let you all quietly back out of that one.

As for the 2012 date, it's a matter of record, and is accepted by mainstream scientists and archeologists everywhere. There are multiple instances.

Archangel

Links

AlmightyCushion

Woghd wrote:

If you want to get into burden of proof, I'll revive my comments about the video of a reptilian shapeshifter, the one that offers a reward to anyone who can prove it's fake. I was nice and let you all quietly back out of that one.

Please see BlitzKriegs comment above. Being the moderator of the film production forum gives him a lot more credibility than you.

Woghd

BlitzKrieg wrote:

No you dont understand.

NO computer elements at all.

Basic filmmaking 101.

Film is made up of individual frames that go at a set speed to create motion.

This applies even to digital video.

Notice the choppy movement of the video on youtube?

That has nothing to do with youtube or with low quality compression or otherwise.

It means the piece was shot at a low framerate.

Now most basic camcorders shoot at a higher frame rate, but can be adjusted for that *film* look by forcing progressive scan which puts the frame rate at 24 a second. But beyond a few very expensive ones they mostly f*ck it up, hence the footage comes out choppy and crap.

Small digital camcorders to save file space and due to their size shoot at even smaller frame rates.


Now take one of these cameras and take the footage out and put it in editing software...with a half decent one (adobe premiere for example) you can look at the individual frames of the footage.

So how does this help create a trick.

Well the cheap and easy way...which would be the way industrial light and magic would do it is to take a few of those frames, alter them on a computer and put them back in...PRESTO! you have instant special effects...Problem is, like you said its easy to spot if you check each individual frame.


BUT!

If you go by a very traditional...very expensive route of creating these effects. You organise a shoot, you reherse and reherse and time it just so its perfect, and then you shoot it. AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN. Then you shoot it again with a minor cosmetic change...and again with a different cosmetic change and you keep this up for as much as you feel you need.

The result is you will have the same scene over and over and over, and because its shot at such a low frame rate, the consistency of it is pretty easy to keep up.


Especially if your only making changes on the level of a few frames

The piece runs at such a low frame rate that it wouldnt be difficult to keep the consistency. The first *big* thing the people point out...the smile going to a scowl. THats because of a low frame rate, the frames containing her changing her expression were not recorded. The changes in her appearance, are from different takes, such as the appearance of random body marks and abnormalities.


Nobody does this today because its insanely expensive (think how much filminh you would need to do to rethread the same scene enough times...in hollywood sense its not fianancially worth it.) its also time consuming and in normal frames rates it would be even more difficult.

Buuut if you wanted to do a *spooky* effect where no sfx traces are left behind then this is the best way. The only problem is it requires alot of patience and alot of work.

I've been saying that the more of these videos that come out, the sooner skeptics would have to get to a point where the explanation is more ridiculous than the phenomena. I just didn't think it would happen so soon.

You cannot honestly believe that video was faked in this way, are you serious?

Archangel

Ciaran500

Terry wrote:

Links

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZGh5cCiEF8

Its mind blowing. :rolleyes:

And again Woghd the burden of proof is on you. You posted it, you back it up.

Woghd wrote:

You cannot honestly believe that video was faked in this way, are you serious?

Why not? What is the reward btw?

AlmightyCushion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrfh1Jp--Tw

This is the best one.

AlmightyCushion

Ciaran500 wrote:

What is the reward btw?

Some magic beans.

Woghd

AlmightyCushion wrote:

Where's his money? This man has just shot down the only piece of 'evidence' you guys have posted up.

Nothing has been shot down. The man has simply offered an EXTREMELY hypothetcal multi-million-dollar scenario (by his own admission) in which the film may be faked. I invite him to prove it and collect the money.

Archangel

AlmightyCushion

Woghd wrote:

Nothing has been shot down. The man has simply offered an EXTREMELY hypothetcal multi-million-dollar scenario (by his own admission) in which the film may be faked. I invite him to prove it and collect the money.

Archangel

He never mentioned multi-million-dollar. Who has actually looked at the video and tried to disprove it.

Woghd

Ciaran500 wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZGh5cCiEF8

Its mind blowing. :rolleyes:

And again Woghd the burden of proof is on you. You posted it, you back it up.


Why not? What is the reward btw?

If you haven't figured it out yet, I'm done spoon-feeding. Look it up yourself.

Archangel

Ciaran500

Woghd wrote:

Nothing has been shot down. The man has simply offered an EXTREMELY hypothetcal multi-million-dollar scenario (by his own admission) in which the film may be faked. I invite him to prove it and collect the money.

Archangel

No he said it was extremely expensive doing it for Hollywood at full framerates. He just said doing it for a video like that is time consuming.

How would it being expensive prove its real?

AlmightyCushion

Woghd wrote:

Nothing has been shot down. The man has simply offered an EXTREMELY hypothetcal multi-million-dollar scenario (by his own admission) in which the film may be faked. I invite him to prove it and collect the money.

Archangel

How much money?

Ciaran500

Woghd wrote:

If you haven't figured it out yet, I'm done spoon-feeding. Look it up yourself.

Archangel

Yeah yeah yeah, some where in the last 21 pages you posted a link that you think proves your claim so now you can avoid it being looked at objectively by calling it spoon feeding.

Irish Wolf

Ummm.. what about the Holocaust? I know you guys are pretty inundated with questions.. but maybe you could task share..

Woghd

Ciaran500 wrote:

No he said it was extremely expensive doing it for Hollywood at full framerates. He just said doing it for a video like that is time consuming.

How would it being expensive prove its real?

The challenge is not to prove it's real. The reward is paid to anyone who can prove it's fake by reproducing the video and explaining how it was done.

Archangel

AlmightyCushion

Ciaran500 wrote:

Yeah yeah yeah, some where in the last 21 pages you posted a link that you think proves your claim so now you can avoid it being looked at objectively by calling it spoon feeding.

He never posted a link for the broccoli mice.

AlmightyCushion

Woghd wrote:

The challenge is not to prove it's real. The reward is paid to anyone who can prove it's fake by reproducing the video and explaining how it was done.

Archangel

How much is the reward?

Woghd

Irish Wolf wrote:

Ummm.. what about the Holocaust? I know you guys are pretty inundated with questions.. but maybe you could task share..

What about it?

Archangel

Ciaran500

AlmightyCushion wrote:

He never posted a link for the broccoli mice.

After insulting us cause we couldn't find it he resigned that it was actually jellyfish mice he was talking about.

AlmightyCushion

Ciaran500 wrote:

After insulting us cause we couldn't find it he resigned that it was actually jellyfish mice he was talking about.

No, I'm pretty sure he said he was still looking for the broccoli mice.

Irish Wolf

Woghd wrote:

What about it?

Archangel

Come on buddy.. keep up.. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53890704&postcount=384

See the interest you've generated with us simple folkies?

Woghd

Ciaran500 wrote:

After insulting us cause we couldn't find it he resigned that it was actually jellyfish mice he was talking about.

Nope. I resigned to nothing other than I can't answer all your questions and do your googling for you too. The jellyfish-mice made my original point, and I'll just have to hunt for the broccoli mice sometime when I have more time.

Archangel

mikemac

Fecking lizards, taking our jobs, taking our women:mad:

I blame them for everything that goes wrong in this country

So Glad

I had seen this video on YouTube and have been talking to the guy who submitted it and many other people to make sure that it's not a hoax, and I can submit to you that is NOT a hoax:

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=dwKcjRD1DNE

The reason it is not a hoax is because here is the original footage:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bes....king.live.cnn

You may need to open it in Internet Explorer as I did, because Firefox is throwing a wobbly over it. As you can see, his eye are clearly vertical slits, just like the YouTube one, so at least we know it's not been tampered, unless CNN did it, but I don't think they would, for obvious reasons.

I've discussed with many other people about the possibility of it being a light trick. This is not true. If it was, why don't we see the same thing happening with Clinton's eyes, or Larry King's? Or any other show on television? Plus, even when George Bush moves his eyes are the same.

You may also notice that his eyes get more visibly thinner as he get more angry & serious.

Take what you will of it.

Screens:

http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/3910/gbseniorshift1ne0.jpg

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/9532/gbseniorshift2sl4.jpg

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/5873/gbseniorshift3eh0.jpg

http://www.dubfinger.0catch.com/investigate/rep-1.gif

Woghd

Irish Wolf wrote:

Come on buddy.. keep up.. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53890704&postcount=384

See the interest you've generated with us simple folkies?

Ok, why should I be interested in David Icke's views on the holocaust?

Archangel

Ciaran500

Woghd wrote:

Nope. I resigned to nothing other than I can't answer all your questions and do your googling for you too. The jellyfish-mice made my original point, and I'll just have to hunt for the broccoli mice sometime when I have more time.

Archangel

So you want us to just believe you even if we can't find any evidence?

You should be a Garda.

Owen

Woghd wrote:

I'll just have to hunt for the broccoli mice sometime when I have more time.

Hrm. How will you trap them? Brocolli tends to be near white wine sauce, pasta, mushrooms, and chicken. Perhaps you could bait a mouse trap with a nice Sauvignon Cabernet 1988, and a KFC family bucket?

Woghd

Ciaran500 wrote:

So you want us to just believe you even if we can't find any evidence?

You should be a Garda.

If the glowing green jellyfish DNA mice aren't enough evidence for you, I have nothing else to contribute to that then. You got me. Mixing DNA is not possible, I guess I was wrong, silly me.

Archangel

Ciaran500

I don't think any denied altering DNA isn't possible. What we called you on was a full human/lizard hybrid.

bronte

Bush is a reptile? Jesus I need a glass of wine.